The Vioxx jury has asked to see the testimony of the pathologist. Read more here.
Vioxx Trial in Texas PLAINTIFF WINS !!!
The Plaintiff won $229,000,000 in punitive damages in the Texas Vioxx trial. More later.
This is a very preliminary report. The amount may be compensatory and punitive damages. In fact, I just heard that the total award is $253,400,000, subject to caps. Punitives are capped based on the computation of economic damages.
Addendum: Look here for a photo of a lawyer who just won an important case. There are a couple of other great photos that follow in the slide show.
An Early Thought About the Vioxx Verdict
I believe that the next trial is in New Jersey next month (plaintiff had an MI; he survived) followed by a trial in federal court in New Orleans in November.
The wonderful thing about this verdict for the rest of the cases is that before trial the plaintiff was not expected to win. Merck thought they had a strong causation case and, as I pointed out in the past, historically the plaintiff loses the first few cases of this type.
Obviously, it would be a mistake to assume that Merck will lay down in these cases given this one defeat. The venue is considered pro-plaintiff, although insiders have indicated that they did not thing that the jury itself was not particularly pro-plaintiff as jury selection ended. In addition, the case was tried by a fantastic lawyer – that obviously makes a difference. Hopefully, Mark Lanier will be invited to try the next few cases.
Loss of Future Earning Capacity
Can a injured plaintiff who is back to work ask for damages for loss of future earning capacity?
Yes, rules the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, given the fact that there was evidence of ongoing physical problems and testimony by the plaintiff that he would probably not be working for as many years.
$20 Million Bond for Failure to Comply with Discovery Orders
An Arkansas class action case against a nursing home company is getting ugly even in discovery. The trial judge threatened to imprison the defendant company’s officers for refusing to comply with court ordered discovery. Then, the trial judge required them to post a $20 million bond for their failure to comply with the discovery orders. The Arkansas Supreme Court recently affirmed the trial judge’s bond requirement. Read about it over at our Tennessee Business Litigation blog.
Case Acceptance
Well, its 9:30 a.m. and I still haven’t posted on the blog today. Sorry. I gave a speech in Memphis last night to a group of nurse practitioners (more in a later post) and drove back to Music City (180 miles) early this morning.
My post this morning is a Guest Post that I wrote for Evan Schaeffer’s Legal Underground blog. Evan is a plaintiff’s lawyer from Madison County, IL and has a great blog that I would encourage you to put on your RSS feed. He was kind enough to let me put a post on his site. He titled it “A Plaintiff’s Lawyer Explains the Economics of Turning Down Cases.”
Some of you have heard me speak on this topic; it is part of the seminar our firm offers every year to young lawyers who practice civil litigation. This year the seminar will be held on December 14 and 15 in Nashville. A mailer on the seminar will be coming out any day and you will be able to register via the Web. More on that later.
First Vioxx Case Goes to Jury
The jury in the Texas Vioxx case is hearing closing arguments today. I will let you know when I hear about the verdict.
UPDATE: Here is an article giving a brief summary of the arguments.
Florida Tort Reform
The Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment to limit attorneys’ fees in med mal cases to 30% of the first $250K in damages and 10% in any recovery about $250K.
So, a $1M verdict would entitle the patient’s attorney to a total fee of $130K. A $2M verdict would result in a fee of $260K. The result: in other than a slam dunk case where no liability or causation discovery was necessary, a plaintiff’s attorney would be working for $100 per hour or less, an amount less than the paralegal rate in major cities.
Florida plaintiffs’ attorneys then starting giving their potential clients the option of waiving their “constitutional right” to a fee cap.
Your Input
Last night I posted the 300th post to this blog in a little less than six months. We have had tremendous success – we have lots of people who visit this site regularly and who have told us that they enjoy what we have to offer.
What can we give you that would help you in your practice? Would you like more information about appellate cases from around the country? Should we spend more time on Tennessee law? Are you interested in the status of the tort reform debate around the country?
Let me know your thoughts. Use the “Comment” link or, if you would rather send me your thoughts privately you can email me at jday@branhamday.com.
Case Involving Suicide Allowed to Proceed
Elizabeth Shin, a student at MIT, committed suicide. Her parents sued MIT and others. A trial judge has dismissed the case against MIT but allowed it to procede against two psychiatrists and two administrators who are not mental health professionals. This article in the Boston Globe has a nice discussion of the legal theory advanced by the plaintiffs and accepted by the trial judge.
The plaintiffs are pushing the envelope on this one. However, as I said to a fellow plaintiffs’ lawyer the other day, there are only two types of lawyers who make common law – those that are stupid and those who take calculated risks.
Let me explain. Some of us take cases with full knowledge that we are going to have to advance the law to get to a jury. Some folks take cases with no idea that they have no right to recovery until they see the motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. The problem with the latter approach is that some cases do not have the right facts to make good law or the facts are not developed appropriately to make good law. Similarly, if you don’t know you are pushing the envelope it may be hard to muster the best arguments in the time period allowed to respond to a motion.